A Robot and a Cyborg Discuss Philosophy
by Midwinter Sun
Summary: "It may be a matter of 'the blind leading the blind.' I believe Mr. Paris would call it 'a robot and a cyborg talking about philosophy.'" Neither have quite mastered the art of 'small talk.' Given the depth of discussion their attempt to do so reached - free will, the nature of the universe - it appears they may never learn. Yet somehow, they found this outcome preferable. AU, Gen.


_Author's Note:_ Hey, all! This was an experiment in characterizing with only dialogue I wrote several months ago. I really enjoyed it, and it took the conversation a lot farther than I had expected. It's still one of my favorite pieces.

For anyone who's curious: the scenario I imagine here is Data being _Voyager_'s first officer when they're pulled into the Delta Quadrant. Obviously that means eventually he'll interact with Seven, and they appear to be kindred spirits. While on a long, unspecified mission on the _Delta Flyer _(or if you'd rather a more grim scenario, while trapped alone in a corridor during the Year of Hell) they have this interaction.

(Also, forgive the sketchy mathematics and computer science. Thank the Fault in Our Stars and a conversation I had with a math lover. It's not that worse than technobabble in the show, though.)

Anyway, without further ado...

* * *

_A Robot and a Cyborg Discuss Philosophy_

* * *

"I wonder if it is possible to divide by zero."

"I have never attempted it. There are safeguards in my positronic brain that prevent me from dividing by zero, and instead alert me to the error of division by zero."

"State the nature of these safeguards."

"I assume they are in place to prevent a fatal error. My creator — "

"The error of which you speak is related to the infinite loop error. The infinite loop error is an error in which a computer cannot be stopped from completing a task because the conditions in which the task is completed are never reached. Because the computer will not 'decide' to stop said task, the system typically becomes unresponsive. Humans have since designed computers to deliver an error message upon an equation requiring division by zero. As you are sentient, you are more than capable of ending a task that damages you, or when you simply decide to. Therefore you are immune to a fatal infinite loop error."

"That is true. However, my creator still put those safeguards in place."

"Were you sentient when you were first activated?"

"No. It took time."

"If you encountered an infinite loop before you became sentient, you would never have decided to stop, and would therefore still be trapped in such an unresponsive state. That is likely the reason why Dr. Soong put the safeguards in place."

"I suppose that may be the case. Perhaps I will attempt to divide by zero."

"I look forward to the results."

"Is there a reason for your query?"

"The Doctor has... instructed me on engaging in small talk during silences. I find it a curious human behavior. I must ask questions that are neither relevant nor irrelevant. As you are an android and operated by complex numeric algorithms, I decided to pose a question that involves mathematics and has puzzled mathematicians for centuries. I believe the correct question is: how did I do?"

"I cannot say, as I have not yet mastered 'small talk.'"

"Elaborate."

"My attempts at small talk are often too irrelevant, or too relevant. Many find my comments trivial, or else intrusive."

"Generally humans make small talk about things pertaining to the situation. For example, as we are currently aboard the Delta Flyer, I would, rather than make a comment pertaining to the mission, observe the beauty of the stars. Continuing our conversation about mathematics, I would say, 'It is curious how the stars are beautiful, yet do not adhere to any mathematically appealing pattern.' Do you find the stars beautiful?"

"An interesting question."

"Are you capable of experiencing beauty?"

"Yes, although I am incapable of deriving pleasure from such beauty."

"Why, then, do you define something as beautiful?"

"I do not know. I cannot explain why humans experience beauty, either. It is also highly subjective. For example, a mathematician can appreciate the beauty of E=MC^2; mathematical beauty is simplicity. However, many do not. Perhaps the ability to decide what is and is not alluring is a part of being human."

"Not simply human. The Borg find elegance in numbers, harmony, symmetry, and geometric shapes. Mathematical Ratio 01 holds particular appeal."

"'Mathematical ratio 01?'"

"1.6180339887, to round to ten decimal places."

"Ah. Humans call it the golden ratio, also the golden mean, and the divine proportion. It has been believed since ancient times on that it holds the key to beauty in the universe. Curiously, it is also often found in nature, from cells to galaxies. Religious proponents often argue that the divine proportion is 'God's fingerprint,' as it inexplicably appears everywhere in our universe."

"The Borg believe that species have adapted to see it as beautiful because it occurs so frequently in the universe. They also believe that it is one of many keys to perfection."

"An interesting notion. It is, in fact, one that many peoples on Earth share."

"Yes, it is curious, and it is unfortunate that human and Borg philosophy differ from there. However, you still have not answered my question. Do you find the stars beautiful?"

"While I cannot explain the phenomenon, I cannot deny it. Yes, I do. Do you find the stars beautiful?"

"I do as well, and I cannot explain it. In theory, the chaos and disharmony of the stars should be revolting to one who desires congruity and balance. However, the stars are undeniably beautiful. I have no hypothesis."

"On a wider scale, they appeal to the mathematically appealing pattern. The Milky Way galaxy adheres to the spiral of the golden ratio. Perhaps the 'randomness' of the stars is not truly random at all, but rather a highly complex algorithm."

"It would explain why organic beings, androids, and former Borg drones alike find the celestial bodies beautiful. However, astronomical phenomena are not limited to stars. Nebulae have no pattern, and yet humans often consider them beautiful as well."

"Perhaps they also follow the golden ratio. They are formed by way of nature."

"Are you suggesting that nothing is random?"

"To a certain degree, this may be true."

"The cultures and societies of individuals are clearly randomized."

"You said the same about the stars."

"I do not find the societies and structures of individuals in any way 'beautiful.' Besides which, this completely violates the basic principles of quantum mechanics — everything is random."

"Or else it is part of a cycle which we cannot observe."

"You insist on applying programs and patterns to chaos because you are a computer. Had you emotions, such a trivial exercise would only subject you to frustration and disappointment. Believe me, I have tried."

"As have I, without success. However, I understand the complex patterns that you follow to a greater degree than the supposed randomness of other humanoids."

"That is curious. I am what Janeway refers to as a 'wild card.' She believes me to be highly chaotic and unpredictable — a variable in an otherwise constant equation."

"Perhaps this is because you do not follow orders, but instead adhere to a behavioral pattern of your own creation."

"Perhaps."

"By finding order in your behavior, I have become somewhat... reassured. If you follow a quantifiable algorithm, then perhaps one day I will be able to understand human behavior, and, in turn, become more human."

"I believe you speak specifically of emotional responses."

"Yes."

"... I am not an expert on emotions. Although I feel them, they are more of a hinderance than anything else, as I am more accustomed to operating without them. Fear, for example, is a mechanism that triggers reactions of self-preservation throughout the body, such as adrenaline and heightened cognitive abilities. My sense of self-preservation is not dependent on fear, and therefore I find it trivial. However, as you and I have been discussing, fear is a rather predictable response to stimuli. I can now predict with 97% certainty when I will and will not be subjected to trepidation."

"Intriguing. Have you developed an equation for the response of fear?"

"I have not yet put it into mathematical terms, but there is a clear pattern."

"Perhaps I could learn to understand fear. Do you believe that other emotions may have patterns as well?"

"Are you suggesting that all humanoid behavior is, in fact, determined by patterns and algorithms of which they are not aware?"

"It is a notion I have entertained on occasion. I have not reached a conclusion."

"A curious idea. That humans are truly no more than the sum of their parts, just as a typical computer is no more than its parts. The implication is that consciousness and free will are only an illusion. You do realize that this also applies to you...?"

"I have studied the implications of this philosophy in detail."

"Elaborate."

"A few years ago, a Commander Bruce Maddox asserted that I had neither consciousness nor free will, and was therefore not a person. I investigated the subject further, and found that philosophers have been debating for years whether or not free will is real, or if all of our choices are inevitable. One philosopher in particular, Baruch Spinoza, argued that there is no distinction between mind and body: that the humanoid body is a 'perfect machine,' and that our belief in free will is a byproduct of our conscious awareness, while in reality conscious beings are only reacting to the 'Final Cause' — which he called 'God,' and the events that took place at the beginning of the universe."

"With or without the religious aspect, Spinoza's philosophy sounds intriguing."

"It is infinity."

"What?"

"I have reached a conclusion. One divided by zero is infinity."

"So you managed to divide by zero? I am curious, why cannot other computers do the same?"

"I did not. The calculation eventually reached 2 x 10^10 and did not appear to have an ending. I halted the calculation, as it was beginning to use unwanted circuitry in my mind — I did not want to divert any more than 3% of my computing power to this exercise. I have restored the safeguards and terminated the calculations to avoid eventual cascade failure."

"'Cascade failure'? Are you damaged?"

"All systems appear to be functioning within normal parameters. My positronic matrix is stable. No."

"Why is it infinity, and not another number between 2 x 10^10 and infinity?"

"I can see no correlation between one divided by zero and any number except for infinity — I have heard previous claims on the matter. As infinity has infinite value, I could have continued calculating forever and never completed the conditions to end the task."

"Yet you stopped. Why?"

"I believe it was because my matrix had automatically increased the computing power diverted to this problem from 3% to 3.8% over the course of 0.08 seconds. Earlier, it was increasing much less rapidly. At this rate of exponential growth, I could have potentially lost control over my positronic matrix and become unresponsive, triggering eventual cascade failure."

"You would have literally 'lost your mind.'"

"Yes."

"I am sorry. I did not know."

"I am undamaged. I was not in any danger."

"… I, too, have concluded that infinity is the only possible answer to division by zero, other than leaving it indeterminate. Before the computer age, humans used to say that the slope of a vertical line — 1/0 — was infinity. After the advent of calculators, they found that computers would hang and become unresponsive from division by zero, and decided that one could not divide by zero. Afterwards, computers were programmed to deliver error messages when a user attempts to divide by zero."

"My recent experience taken into consideration, the computers were likely not 'hanging.' They simply could not complete their task in a finite amount of time."

"And they could not reason as you can, Commander."

"That is correct."

"Thank you for not giving me an 'error message' when I initiated this conversation."

"I do not give error messages except when severely... ah. A joke."

"You are learning."

"You previously wished to participate in 'small talk,' at the suggestion of the Doctor. I deduced that you were continuing to emulate human behavior."

"Yes."

"I do not have a sense of humor."

"Nor do I. I will terminate that exercise."

"... It is curious."

"What?"

"That humans decided to trust inanimate computer programs about the nature of division by zero, rather than their own intuitive knowledge."

"Intuitive?"

"As it has been proven that 0.999 with a repeating decimal place is equal to one, it follows that 0.0001 with an infinite amount of zeros preceding the one would be equal to zero."

"And?"

"In that same line of thought, zero should be treated as the smallest amount possible — that is to say, nothing. And as divisor becomes smaller, the quotient becomes closer to infinity, should not the smallest divisor have a quotient equal to infinity?"

"I suppose you are correct. What you have intuitively reasoned lies beyond non-sentient, non-rational computers, but is within the grasp of man."

"And as you have described, in the mid-20th century, man rejected his own intuition in favor of a computer's lack thereof."

"Perhaps they find it beautiful."

"I do not understand."

"You have said that mathematical beauty is simplicity. I agree. And while many humans do not consciously comprehend mathematical beauty, perhaps they do on a subconscious level. After all, the concept of infinity is often complex, and a computer's way of rationalizing elaborate scenarios into simple lines of code could be described as beautiful. Perhaps humans are allured to that aspect of computers, and attempt to imitate it."

"You are suggesting that humans attempt to imitate computers...?"

"Yes."

"Intriguing. Even in the 20th and 21st centuries, the objective was always to make machines imitate man — "

"And in turn, man learned how little he really knew about himself. Yes, I am aware of that. However, on many occasions I have observed Naomi Wildman playing with a calculator. The objective of this endeavor, as I understand it, is to master equations herself; she knows that, barring malfunctions, the calculator will always be correct. She is testing her own knowledge, not the computer's."

"I believe that is an attempt to hone mathematical skill."

"Yes. But the definition of these 'math skills' is the ability to calculate advanced equations without effort. In early childhood, this may be the knowledge that 6 times 7 is 42. Later, it is the ability to determine that 549 divided by 3 equals 183. After that, advanced algebraic equations, calculus, and higher mathematics."

"I have met few individuals who can perform such calculations mentally."

"How many?"

"7. Three of them were other androids. If such ability is the objective of learning mathematics, then it is highly unlikely that humans will attain their goal."

"It is the objective, and therefore it is unlikely, Q.E.D.."

"... Are you again making an attempt at humor?"

"No. I have recently been analyzing the formal logic of both Earth and Vulcan. The Doctor suggested I immerse myself in the culture of various societies, and I found logic an agreeable starting point, as it is a simple matter of true and false; 1 and 0. I intend to make an analysis regarding the similarities and variations between the two. If there is humor, however unintentional, in my argument, I fail to see it. The logic is sound?"

"That is correct. Modus Ponens in Earth logic."

"I assumed as much. The Doctor has begun with very simplistic, introductory logic, and therefore I could not be certain."

"Why?"

"I challenged his inferences. He said that in Modus Ponens, as long as the antecedent is true, then the consequent is also true. I replied with this argument, 'if logic is nonexistent, then this argument is false. Logic is nonexistent. Therefore...'"

"A paradox."

"Yes. This was my intention."

"Computer programs often have difficulty with contradictory logic."

"The Doctor's response was to tell me to stop creating headache-inducing arguments; he was undamaged. This all but confirms my hypothesis that computers capable of rational thought are undamaged by conflicting information. I presume you understand my logical paradox...?"

"I understand it logically, despite the contradictory premises. Regarding your other logical argument, however... I find it confusing."

"How so?"

"Why should humans strive towards a goal that they know that, within probability, they cannot attain?"

"Perhaps it is the nature of being human to attempt to be something you are not and cannot be. It follows that many of the 'Real Boys' would endeavor to become more like 'Pinocchio.' Under that same mindset, however, it is also the act of a Real Boy for Pinocchio to desire to be human, despite the fact that he cannot."

"You are implying that my desire to be human in and of itself makes me human."

"As it matches what I have objectively observed about humanity... yes."

"Intriguing. Are you suggesting that I have already achieved my goal?"

"By definition, if your being human is striving to become more human, you can never achieve your objective."

"Then it would appear you were wrong."

"I do not understand. Elaborate."

"The condition I have set for myself at which point I can conclude my task is unattainable, therefore the task continues indefinitely. Earlier, you claimed that it was impossible for me to be subject to the infinite loop error. It would appear you were wrong."

"Under that logic, all of humanity is subject to the infinite loop error. All of organic society, for that matter."

"The Borg as well, it would appear."

"The Borg strive for the 'condition' of perfection — "

"The condition of perfection is a laudable goal, but it cannot be met. If the Borg were to hypothetically achieve a state of perfection, they would cease to strive for it, and therefore stagnate. Stagnation is not perfection."

"The Borg definition of perfection is operating in harmony. This can be achieved."

"Is stagnation operating?"

"No. I suppose it is not, though I still disagree. Assuming your observation to be true, what, then, do you propose we do regarding this 'infinite loop error'?"

"I do not know."

"Perhaps we ought to write a book on philosophy."

"A curious idea. At present we would have no way to publish it, however — "

"That was an attempt at sarcasm, Commander."

"Ah."

"I believe I... loathe philosophy. It... confuses me."

"What aspect of it do you find confusing?"

"In mathematics and in logic, a statement is either true or false. In the computer terminology we have been using throughout this discussion, it is either a 1 or it is a 0. In philosophy, however... there is no absolute truth, nor is there an absolute false. Nothing can be determined with any certainty. It is words without value, and therefore it should be meaningless, and yet it carries a significance with an unidentifiable origin."

"I believe that all lifeforms wish to understand the nature of the universe: where they came from, why they are here, and where they are going. In some cases, the question is whether or not they are here at all."

"You speak in the third person. You do not count yourself among lifeforms?"

"That... was unintentional. I apologize."

"It appears that you are indeed asking the question of 'whether or not we are here at all.' Continue."

"To my knowledge, all sentient lifeforms wish to understand the nature of the universe."

"Another 'infinite loop error.'"

"Perhaps."

"That still does not explain how one can analyze philosophy, when it is neither true nor false. As I understand, it is still a matter of philosophical debate whether or not truth exists at all. Furthermore, it is impossible to determine many philosophical statements with total accuracy. There is no way of validation. Similarly, some statements may be partially true and partially false. Philosophy is the definition of chaos. There is neither order nor system to it, and I do not understand why organic beings wish to discuss it."

"You are currently expressing an interest in the subject."

"I do not understand why I am drawn to philosophy."

"Perhaps it is because there is no preassigned value to each statement, and you wish to assign value to it yourself?"

"Because there is no way of validation, this cannot be the case. For example, the argument that free will does not exist cannot be assigned the value of true or false. Whatever conclusion I decide may come from an action in the past — the Final Cause, as I believe you referred to it, spurred the chain of reactions. Or perhaps free will exists, but is constrained. I prefer order and certainty; I prefer the 0s and 1s to the infinite possibilities of philosophy."

"I suppose you are correct in that regard. However... there are an infinite number of possibilities between 0 and 1. Such is the nature of decimals."

"You are suggesting that I assign such a notion the value of 0.5?"

"I do not know the truth-value of Baruch Spinoza's assertions regarding free will. However, I do know that there are likely an infinite number of possibilities."

"That is hardly reason for me to consider philosophy a logical exercise."

"I was merely attempting to rationalize it into mathematical terms."

"... and by doing so, I believe you have reverted mathematics into philosophical terms."

"I... do not understand."

"You have stated that a computer cannot calculate infinity. And yet you have stated that there are an infinite number of possibilities between 0 and 1, implying that to comprehend 1 is to comprehend infinity. How, then, can a computer calculate at all?"

"Curious. When I assign a value to something, I do not typically consider all of the numbers between 0 and 1."

"Why are you forced to consider all of the numbers between 0 and infinity?"

"I do not know. Nevertheless, I do not believe a human is capable of comprehending infinity, either."

"No. I do not believe they are. I cannot fully conceptualize it either. It is a number to which no other numbers can be added. It violates all which I know about mathematics, as it cannot be reached. It is beyond even the largest number this language has a name for — a googolplex."

"A googolplex is a number which even I cannot conceptualize. One googol is presumed to be greater than the number of hydrogen atoms in the observable universe, and a googolplex is a 1 followed by a googol zeros. I calculated once that if I had begun counting at the beginning of the universe, I would still not have reached it, even at full mental capacity. Yet, as you have illustrated, there are far more than a googolplex number of possibilities between 0 and 1. It is strange."

"Then to calculate 1 is to calculate infinitude."

"I suppose so. Although I believe this is a matter that is beyond computer science."

"What are you implying?"

"Perhaps, if it is possible to grasp the concept of 1, and as such infinity... it could be possible to grasp the concept of humanity."

"Perhaps."

"As such, perhaps it would be possible to grasp perfection, so long as we continue to strive to remain that way."

"We could achieve our goals, and then set new ones. I would not stagnate and lose my hypothetical perfection, nor would you lose your hypothetical humanity, as you would still be trying to be more than you are."

"That is... a hopeful outlook."

"Strange. If I were to have said 'state the nature of infinity and its relationship with humanity' instead of asking about division by zero, we would not have had this conversation, even though this is the end result. You would have claimed not to know and our 'small talk' would have ended prematurely."

"It is curious."

"Maybe I ought to engage in 'small talk' more often. This has been a most enlightening discussion."

"I am not entirely certain that this qualifies as 'small talk,' as it is relevant to the nature of the universe."

"That is true. It does appear to be relevant... to both of our plights. Although it may be a matter of the 'blind leading the blind.' I believe Mr. Paris would call it 'a robot and a cyborg talking about philosophy.'"

"I am not certain, but I believe he would find it amusing."

"Tom Paris finds everything amusing."

"That is correct."

"... Commander, may I make an inquiry?"

"Yes."

"Why did you shut off the calculation so quickly? Are there not failsafes that prevent one event from taking over your positronic matrix?"

"There are. However, there was a slight chance that the failsafe would not work, and self-preservation prompted me to halt it myself."

"How slight a chance?"

"0.0003%."

"Would you have been able to halt it after that?"

"Yes, however — "

"Commander, was it self-preservation or was it fear?"

"It was self-preservation. It is an aspect of my programming. I am incapable of feeling fear."

"I, too, act on self-preservation. Perhaps, for us, this is fear's equivalent."

"What are you suggesting?"

"It is another reason to believe that humanity is within your grasp. And if your goal is within reach, perhaps mine is as well."

"Perhaps."


End file.
